OTRAS CUESTIONES

By adopting the specific methodological approach elaborated above, this thesis carries the common weaknesses of qualitative case study comparisons and process tracing research. Primarily, by comparing similar systems this research “cannot go beyond so-called middle range theories that apply only in a restricted area” (Della Porta, 2008, 214). Furthermore, by choosing cases that share the same historical background and are subject to a specific regional process – EU accession, the thesis limits its findings to multi-ethnic countries with an EU membership perspective. On the other hand, Landman (2003) argues that “researchers working in area studies are essentially employing most similar systems design, and the focus on countries from these regions effectively controls for those features that are common to them while looking for those features that are not” (p.29). The findings of the research are nevertheless relevant for the rest of the countries in the Western Balkans which are in the accession pipeline, i.e. countries holding a membership perspective. In addition, as will be shown in the empirical analysis and conclusions, the thesis’ findings carry theoretical significance for the study of EU conditionality and its relationship with democratic consolidation.

Any study of conditionality in the context of EU accession, carries the risk of overstating the role of the EU. This study makes an attempt to overcome this risk by extensively using national stakeholders’ views and addressing specifically the role of domestic actors. Reliance on primary information from all the stakeholders also assists in the distinguishing between the roles of different actors, as one of the common critiques of process tracing. Similarly, it has been argued that “process tracing can only work if a sufficiently high level of accuracy, and reliability, can be reached on specific processes and events” (Vennesson,

2008 p.237, see also Collier, 2011). For this purpose in the analysis, the data is triangulated between the document analysis, the interviews and where possible secondary research. Even in this case, the possibility remains that “negative evidence might be ignored” and the researcher overlooks contradictory data (Vennesson, 2008 p.238). In an attempt to overcome this criticism, this thesis conducts in-depth analysis and understands conditionality only as one of the potential explanations and factors in the processes studied. By analysing the operation of conditionality over a longer period of time, it also aims to uncover other explanations which might have fed into the policy processes.

An additional line of thought of academic literature argues for the incompatibility between case studies, process-tracing and interpretative approaches. George and Bennett (2005) in their seminal work on case studies argue that “the strongest means of drawing inferences from case studies is the use of a combination of within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons within a single study”, but limit the use of the term “case study” to a positivist context (p.18). Checkel similarly highlights that the process tracing method is “fundamentally at odds with more interpretative epistemologies” (Checkel, 2005). On the other hand, more recent methodological studies using examples from trends in current research have supported the use of process tracing in interpretative research. Vennesson (2008) in this direction highlights that “process tracing can be used to assess the relative impact of certain variables, but also to get a better sense of the actors’ perceptions” (p.235). Having in mind this is a case-oriented, rather than variable oriented research, this observation is of increasing importance, because process tracing has enabled me as a researcher to grasp the evolution of conditionality and its understanding at the EU and national level. Hence, as this has been a widely used method in latest research and also due to the suitability of the processes under examination for a chronological analysis (illustrated in the tables above) this research has opted out for the use of case-study approach and process tracing method.

On a more general level, the use of identity as a basis of categorisation of analysis has been criticized as a potential way of reification of these concepts (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000, 5). Identity for the purposes of this study is understood in line with Tilly’s (2003) definition of “a potent set of social arrangements in which people construct shared stories about who they are, how they are connected, and what has happened to them” (p.608). Brubaker and Cooper (2000) argue that “researchers should avoid unintentionally reproducing

or reinforcing such reification by uncritically adopting categories of practice as categories of action” (p.5). Approaching the practicalities of minority policies in light of the EU accession, this research cannot avoid the use of this terminology. In fact, the discourse in the EU accession process on minority rights has largely been framed in group identification (Hughes and Sasse, 2003 p.8). By doing so, however, it does not imply that there are no intra-group differences within the analysed cases. At the same time it recognizes that “ethnic groups should not be understood as natural units that have always been there [...] since, conceptually and empirically, it makes more sense to understand them as the result of social and political processes of categorization” (Vermeersch, 2006 p.3-4) .

The use of document analysis and elite interviews as methods raise several concerns in relation to the data that were obtained for the purposes of this study. Reliance on official documents in many cases can provide a general idea of the policy direction, but only in its formal aspect. The documents for this purpose will be treated in relation to the political context in which they were developed, rather than as direct indicators of policy directions. The documents were assessed according to the criteria of authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning (Harrison, 2001).

The semi-structured interview as a method also raises several important concerns in terms of the data they provide and their subsequent analysis. First, conducting interviews is costly both in terms of financial resources and time. Nevertheless, as I was spending part of my research period in my home country and have obtained the minimal resources for conducting them, I was able to overcome these difficulties. In terms of time, as I had initial contacts with the interviewees, I was able to arrange and conduct the interviews fairly quickly. Similarly, access to the interviewees is always a major concern in research involving elites (See Dexter, 2006). Having already established contacts with parts of my target groups, including the civil servants and the CSO representatives I was able to partly overcome this problem. As my research focuses on the European Commission staff and civil servants, they are a group that is usually more willing to devote time to researchers than politicians and appointed officials.

As this thesis examines a period which includes events over almost 15 years, when using interview data, some of the chapters (especially the chapter on the period between 1997 and 2005) run the risk of reliability of oral history. Thus, it acknowledges that the possibility remains “the interviewer to invent a narrative out of his own interest; or the interviewee may wish to please the interviewer

knowing how to frame answers in his language and discourse” (Boobbyer, 2000 p.557). In the interviewing context, the interviewee may select and organize certain incidents and communicate them in a particular way. However, even false information can be useful in relation to how a person chooses to explain an event (Boobbyer, 2000 p.557). Attempts to overcome these problems were made by interviewing a large sample of stakeholders relevant for the study and by triangulating of data from interviews with several target groups and extensive secondary literature and official documents.

Lastly, qualitative studies relying on open-ended interviews carry specific ethical concerns which were taken into consideration when creating and conducting this research. When contacted for the purposes of the interview, potential interlocutors were provided with an information sheet with basic info on the proposed research project and its funding. Informed consent was obtained from all the interviewees in accordance with the University’s rules and regulations and was securely stored.30 Confidentiality of the interviewees was ensured primarily due to their public position. Literature highlights that it is the researcher’s responsibility to reflect on the possible consequences not only for the persons taking part in the study, but for the larger group they represent as well (Kvale, 1996 p.116). Hence, the interviewees that took part in the study in the thesis are identified according to their position and or institution/organisation since these factors are of relevance for this study. In the Annex IV of the thesis the interviewees are provided with their names and positions, however for the text of the thesis I consider their positions to be of primary relevance. Moreover, in order to ensure confidentiality, the data is presented in a disaggregated way, i.e. in relation to the themes in order to reduce the possibility of recognition of the interviewees (see Darlington and Scott, 2002).

This chapter has presented the methodological approach of this study. It has reflected on the process of data collection and data analysis for this thesis which aims to examine the application of EU conditionality in relation to minority policies in Croatia and Macedonia between 1997 and 2012. The next chapter examines how the research fits in theoretical debates on Europeanisation by conditionality and democratic consolidation in order to substantiate the focus of this thesis on the role of the EU in shaping national minority policies.

This research project was approved by the University of Leeds Faculty Research Ethics Committee on 25th June 2010.

3. Europeanisation by conditionality in national minority policies –